At a stage marked by overlapping interests and multiple layers of influence in north-eastern Syria, the relationship between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) appears closer to a transitional arrangement imposed by on-the-ground realities than to a comprehensive political partnership or a clearly defined process of institutional integration. Despite repeated rounds of negotiations and announced agreements – most notably the 10 March agreement – key sovereign sectors, including education, border crossings, and natural resources, continue to be managed through a hybrid administrative framework that combines the existing structures of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) with ongoing efforts to reassert the state’s official authority.
Available indicators suggest that what is unfolding on the ground amounts to a temporary management of a complex crisis, governed primarily by security balances and regional and international pressures rather than by a shared political will to resolve the path towards integration. While the state insists on sovereignty and unified decision-making, the SDF maintains limited administrative and security margins, drawing on its control on the ground and external backing while awaiting a broader settlement. Between these two trajectories, previous agreements remain under scrutiny, with implementation tied to shifts in the balance of power – leaving the current relationship best described as open-ended negotiation rather than a settled partnership.
The nature of the relationship and sovereign files
Dr Salah Qirata, professor of political science and international relations based in Madrid, told +963 that in sensitive sovereign files such as education, border crossings, and oil, the existing relationship between the Syrian government and the SDF is neither a lasting partnership nor a fully fledged joint administration, but rather an inherently transitional and negotiative phase.
In the same context, Jordanian journalist Amal Jabour told +963 that the current relationship in these files cannot be described as a clear temporary partnership, an institutional joint administration, or even a structured transitional process leading to the restoration of full state control.
Qirata added that the Syrian state continues to assert its sovereignty and seeks to integrate the SDF into official state institutions. He noted that sovereignty over border crossings and strategic resources in SDF-controlled areas is currently managed through transitional and negotiated arrangements. According to him, the Syrian government considers these files to fall exclusively within its sovereign authority and aims to reclaim them in full.
Conversely, he explained that the SDF continues to administer these files in practice on a temporary basis under interim arrangements that allow for oil transit and the operation of border crossings, alongside gradual state oversight. He argued that the boundaries of authority have become relatively clear: the government retains final decision-making power, while the SDF maintains a limited and temporary administrative role pending the formal integration of its institutions into the state structure.
In parallel, Jabour pointed out that the SDF exercises effective control over the day-to-day management of these files, while the Syrian government seeks to act as the legal reference point but is, in her assessment, unable to enforce full national sovereignty on the ground. She explained that sovereignty in these areas remains divided and incomplete, shaped by ongoing negotiations between Damascus and the SDF without final outcomes.
Read also: Yasser Al-Suleiman: Decentralisation, the SDF–Damascus Deal and What Comes Next
The education file
On education, Qirata noted that what is unfolding goes beyond an administrative effort to avoid a service vacuum, describing it as a clear political struggle over identity, curricula, and state authority. He said that the SDF enforces alternative curricula on the ground, while the Syrian government considers education a core sovereign pillar and insists that full authority rests with the Ministry of Education. He added that oversight, implementation, and supervision of schools in SDF-controlled areas remain a central point of ongoing political contention between the two sides.
In the same vein, Jabour explained that the education situation east of the Euphrates reflects a mix of two parallel tracks. On the one hand, there is a temporary administrative settlement aimed at preventing school closures and ensuring continuity in children’s education. On the other, the file reflects a deeper political struggle over identity, curricula, and state reference points. She said the SDF is seeking to build an education system aligned with its own vision and identity, while the Syrian government attempts to impose an official reference framework enabling full implementation of the approved national curricula.
She argued that, in practice, neither side holds full decision-making power, with schools operating in a fragile state suspended between imposed administrative realities and an undeclared political conflict.
Regional and international factors
In a related context, Qirata explained that security and military arrangements – including the US presence, the Turkish threat, and the Russian role – are what effectively shape the current relationship between Damascus and the SDF. He noted that the US presence has pushed the SDF towards understandings with the Syrian government to safeguard its positions and forces, while the Turkish threat remains a constant pressure shaping both co-operation and tension. He also pointed to Russia’s role as a powerful mediator working to prevent direct escalation and maintain negotiation channels between the two sides.
By contrast, Jabour stressed that regional and international factors exert a direct and decisive influence. She argued that the US presence grants the SDF broad room for manoeuvre, while Turkish interests impose continuous pressure on decision-making paths – rendering any form of co-operation fragile and subject to rapid change depending on regional and international shifts.
Read also: Can fighting ISIS ease tensions between Damascus and the SDF?
Prospects for the relationship and implementation
Qirata concluded that the relationship between the two sides is not a genuine partnership, but a forced balance imposed by regional and international security interests. He said the current dynamic does not reflect real political integration within state institutions, but rather a temporary management of a crisis driven by field conditions – chiefly the need to preserve stability, control resources, and avoid military escalation. Any tangible political progress, he argued, remains contingent on changes in the balance of power on the ground.
For her part, Jabour stated that ongoing talks between the Syrian government and the SDF have yet to yield concrete results, and that previous agreements – including the 10 March agreement on integrating civil and military institutions – have not entered the implementation phase. She explained that the government accuses the SDF of stalling, while the SDF continues to manage its institutions independently and reiterates demands for decentralisation. She concluded that any existing settlement does not constitute real political integration, but rather a temporary crisis-management arrangement pending shifts in power balances or regional and international pressure capable of producing meaningful progress.
